Recently, BlueBlogger Jack Bogdanski posted his election endorsements over at bojack.org. To share the love, we're inviting all BlueOregonians to post their endorsements here. For now, focus on ballot measures - since we're guessing candidates might be repetitive. So, how are you voting? Discuss.

The only candidate I want to endorse, because his is the only contest that might be close, is Sam Adam. Even though I think he might be falling apart a bit, he has proven himself to be "smart, tough, and real." Nick Fish is such a politician... In all the times we have met, I have gotten a car salesman vibe from him. Otherwise, Fish is good, too. I reiterate the oft-stated notion that I wish either Adams or Fish was running for mayor (despite their lack of experience). My vote for Potter was luke-warm; the only thing I really like about him is his financial contribution limit. Back to Sam, though, I really hope he runs for office again as he is probably going to lose this time around.

33: I voted yes, knowing all the reasons I should have voted no. But, hey, I am in support of any steps toward legalizing marijuana, period. It is also a loser and my yes vote then becomes only symbolic.

34: I voted yes. There has been a lot of discussion of this on all sorts of blogs. I really had a tough time and considered not voting on it at all. In the end, I went on instinct. Saving forests, good. Timber industry, sketchy.

35: No comment.

36: No!!!! This was my most passionate vote. This measure reminds me of Jim Crow legislation at its worst.

37: No!!!! Third most passionate vote. 37 is such a horrific idea. Do I even need to say more?

I voted (notice the past tense, Kari) NO on every initiative. Here they are in my order of importance - thanks to Jack Bog for the idea:

26-64 - I have two children, one in Kindergarten and one in third grade. Enough said.

37 - This would be the end of Oregon's land use system, and thankfully farmers, or at least the farm bureaus, realize this and oppose it. That gives me some hope that it will fail.

36 - It's too bad this issue was forced on the public before we had a chance for a rational discussion of civil unions and gay marriage. I partially blame the Multnomah County council, but based on what is happening across the country, I think that is more of an excuse for the proponents than anything else.

38 - I've never seen an initiative that would so blatantly benefit one company. The fact that the said company is bankrolling the campaign just makes it worse.

35 - One legitimate case of gross negligence that causes permanent injury or worse is enough to keep the law as it is. Some reforms are probably a good idea, but this isn't it.

33 - Is this really necessary?

34 - This receives a no because of the extremely high standard that I have for voting yes on any initiative. Initiatives have sent Oregon on the downward fiscal path of the past 15 years. One initiative that would definitely get a yes vote from me is one to eliminate the initiative system. Initiatives have no give and take - they are all or nothing, which invariably ends in poor law. Even with all the special interests and lobbyists, I'll take the legislative process.

I'm going to go fill out the ballot now, with likely predictable votes. But here's the thing that most interests me about the election: when Measure 36 passes--and it will, by a bigoted mile--what then? We'll still have the section in the state constitution about equal protection, and then an explicitly unequal section. So what happens next?

Whose calling the Prez? Oregon will definitely go Kerry, as I've been confidently predicting for six months, but what about Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin?

We'll still have the section in the state constitution about equal protection, and then an explicitly unequal section. So what happens next?

Nothing as far as state law goes, unless the ACLU can convince a court that M36 changes more than one part of the Oregon Constitution. Beyond that, as near as I can tell, the only chance left is challenging the result of M36 as a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Whose calling the Prez? Oregon will definitely go Kerry, as I've been confidently predicting for six months, but what about Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin?

Well here are all the latest state polls as made available by Electoral-Vote.com. The one thing I don't like about this site is that it just puts whatever poll came out last from each state to call the state for the day. We all know that's not a statistically sound way of doing things. However, you can get the latest gauge. Note FL and IA are tied - though they generally go back and forth. As does OH, WI, NV and PA (though I think PA and NV have sat tight on the blue side for the past few weeks). NM has been on the barely red side for a few weeks.

Almost all of these polls are within the margin (except, like, most of New England and the South/Bible Belt). So this is going to be a nailbiter down to the end. Even though I've put my money (or, Jack's wine) on October 21 for an OBL capture, I think it's getting kinda late for an October Surprise and this one will be fought on its merits right down to the wire. Wait a minute, is that an oxymoronical statement? If it really is fought on its merits, should it really be down to the wire? Annnnnnyway.

And what happens if Bush wins?

God help us all.

And I haven't voted yet, but there are very few things that I'm voting yes on and when I'm really torn as I am on a couple, I will most likely vote no because it's better not to change things than to possibly change things the wrong way.

As for 36 - when talking to non-political, anti-gay marriage folks, try this "trick" (that I screwed up the other day). I was talking to my ex-boyfriend about all things political. We don't differ on much but some things are HUGE so I generally opt not to argue about them. Since we broke up, though, I went ahead and stuck my iron in the fire. I said "You're voting yes on 36 aren't you?" He said "Which one is that?" I said "Gay marriage." He said "Well then I'm voting no." I made the mistake of correcting him and pointing out that he had it backwards. Damn it. So close.

Then, guessing that he was clueless on such things, I took him to school on the fact that voting "no" does not mean that the opposite of whatever the measure is will automatically happen. It just means things stay the same. He was like "Oh, really? OK." <shaking head=""> Brilliant guy, not political. lol. Unfortunately I think he's your average voter. The OCA did a really good job of convincing people in the early 90s that a no vote meant that the opposite of whatever the measure was for was going to happen no matter what. I think it stuck.

Beyond that, as near as I can tell, the only chance left is challenging the result of M36 as a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It'll be a loooooooooong time before any constitutional law is decided about gay marriage. I think the big things they've taken on this term are juvenile death penalty and the 10 commandments being displayed on gov't buildings, etc.

I can't see this court jumping into the fray anytime soon. Of course when the court changes (either way) and has something to prove... that might be a different story. There's no way that a court that would be as divided as this one would take even the "best" gay marriage case and take the chance of a 5-4 or even a 6-3 decision - no matter what the majority would rule. This one is going to be duked out at the state level at least for a while yet. So, I guess, if/when M36 passes - depending on whether or not it is challenged and then goes to the State Supreme Court - it'll stand. :-(

I'm really pretty P.O.'d about the ballot choices I have to make this year. Many of the measures just don't ask the right question. For example, why are we asking whether gays ought to be able to be married, when marriage is a religious institution - which is the reason the issue is so divisive? What business is it of the government's whether people swear to stay together for the rest of their lives before God? The only business the government has in it is whether two people have formed a contractual relationship - a civil union - and whether they want to get out of their contractual relationship. Anyone who wants to have a contract with another person to share property and responsibility for each other's interests ought to be able to do so. Get rid of government-sanctioned marriage altogether is my opinion.

Then there's the son-of-Measure 7. Because I supported Measure 7, this version isn't going to make me happy because it's weak and really won't do anything at all. But if I vote against it, I'll just be sending a message that I don't support the concept of respecting private property rights, which isn't how I feel at all. So I'm mad I'm being asked that question.

I'm very angry about the presidential race as well. I can't stand what Bush has done to this country, and I don't like what Kerry would do. So I have concluded I won't vote in that category because any vote I would cast would fill me with too much regret.

On the timber ballot measure, I think it's a cleverly-worded anti-logging measure, though I'm not sure, and though the timber interests are self-centered and not altogether honest or responsible, timber is a vital part of our economy and our way of life, so I don't want to inadvertently destroy the industry in the name of "balance," even though I consider myself an environmentalist.

Fortunately, there are a couple of easy choices that don't upset me. The anti-SAIF measure is a classic special interest measure that is just wrong, any way you look at it. I've known a number of people who have paid dearly for poor medical care by inattentive doctors. I wouldn't dream of setting a limit on the value of their suffering.

As for the rest of the measures, I'm happily at a point in my life where I don't remember what they are - and even better, I don't even know what numbers go with what issues.

I've already worked up a few people with my take on M34 (see below), so I won't go through all of my other decisions/endorsements here. You can find them at my own blog tho (click on my name to link through). One other thought: Becky has it right - too many people are asking the wrong question about gay marriage. Why not a ballot measure to get government out of the church's business for good (and perhaps codify civil unions for all couples who want to "partner" at the same time)?

I am voting for Nick Fish. The one thing our city needs, is fresh ideas. The current city insiders need to hear other perspectives and welcome new faces in Multnomah County. From business to business, shop to shop we need a kinder business climate.

To the U.S. Congress:

Protect our seniors and END the government's ability to garnish Social Security benefits.

first name*

last name*

Email address*

zip code*

Please leave this field blank:

Note: This petition is sponsored by Blue Oregon Action, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Ron Wyden, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, Campaign for America's Future, People For the American Way, RootsAction, Social Security Works, and The Nation. By signing, you may receive emails from these sponsors updating you on the progress of this campaign and other important projects. (You may, of course, unsubscribe at any time.) Learn more.